Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that On Putnam's own causal-historical account, 'gold' rigidly designates the actual stuff in our environment, not any single intrinsic property like atomic number.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Rigid designation requires a principled criterion for tracking identity across worlds; brute causal history alone underdetermines this criterion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If 'gold' designates 'the stuff causing our samples,' we face circularity: which properties make something count as 'the same stuff'?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Putnam himself later emphasized stereotype and nominal essence, suggesting intrinsic properties do play an essential role in determining reference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Our term 'gold' was introduced by pointing to samples in nature, establishing reference via causal contact with the actual substance itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Scientific discovery revealed gold's atomic number post hoc; this didn't change what 'gold' refers to, suggesting reference precedes property identification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Intrinsic properties like atomic number could theoretically vary across possible worlds while 'gold' maintains reference to the original substance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.